These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparative effectiveness of colony-stimulating factors for febrile neutropenia: a retrospective study.
    Author: Tan H, Tomic K, Hurley D, Daniel G, Barron R, Malin J.
    Journal: Curr Med Res Opin; 2011 Jan; 27(1):79-86. PubMed ID: 21091127.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Granulocyte colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) decrease the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. There are two G-CSFs (pegfilgrastim and filgrastim) that differ in dosing schedules from which oncologists may prescribe. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of prophylactic pegfilgrastim and filgrastim on the risk of hospitalizations. The secondary objective was to compare the effectiveness of the timing of initiation (prophylactic versus delayed). METHODS: A retrospective study of administrative claims from US commercial payers included adult patients with Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast, or lung cancer, treated with chemotherapy between July 2004 and January 2008. For these patients, the first course of chemotherapy and each unique cycle with use of G-CSF was identified and designated 'prophylaxis' if used within the first 5 days of each cycle, or 'delayed', if after day 5. The risk of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalization was evaluated for the pegfilgrastim and filgrastim prophylaxis cohorts and for the prophylaxis and delayed G-CSF initiation cohorts. RESULTS: Among 5,571 patient-cycles identified, 88.9% and 11.1% used pegfilgrastim and filgrastim respectively. The rate of neutropenic hospitalization was 1.1% for pegfilgrastim prophylaxis and 3.5% for filgrastim prophylaxis (P = 0.001). Compared to chemotherapy cycles with filgrastim prophylaxis, those with pegfilgrastim prophylaxis had decreased risk of neutropenia-related (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.83) and all-cause hospitalization (adjusted OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.84). The neutropenic hospitalization rate was 1.2% for G-CSF prophylactic initiation and 3.7% for delayed G-CSF initiation (P < 0.001). Chemotherapy cycles with prophylactic initiation of either G-CSF had decreased risk of neutropenia-related (adjusted OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.56) and all-cause hospitalization (adjusted OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.91) compared with delayed initiation of G-CSF. CONCLUSIONS: Pegfilgrastim prescribed as prophylaxis resulted in lower risk of neutropenia-related and all-cause hospitalizations compared to filgrastim prophylaxis. This reduction was similar for prophylactic G-CSF initiation when compared to delayed G-CSF initiation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]